alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION OF BILL MCDERMOTT, CO-CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF SAP AG

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of SAP AG (the Company) on Form 20-F for the period ending December 31, 2013, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 21, 2014 (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies that, to his knowledge:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                    |  |  |  |        |  |                            |  | 
|------------------- |  |  |  | ------ |  | -------------------------- |  | 
|Date March 20, 2014 |  |  |  | By:    |  | /s/ Bill McDermott         |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Name:  |  | Bill McDermott             |  | 
|                    |  |  |  | Title: |  | Co-Chief Executive Officer |  | 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being
filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
Exhibit 99.2

THANKSGIVING COFFEE COMPANY, INC.

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report ofThanksgiving Coffee Company, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned Chief FinancialOfficer of the Company hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|      (i)  | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                                |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                                                                                                                 |
|      (ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |

 

|   | /s/ JOAN KATZEFF                          |
|--------|-------------------------------------------|
|   |                                           |
|   | **President and Chief Financial Officer** |
# C_2022128EN.01001801.xml

| 21.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 128/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 128/18

---

Judgment of the General Court of 2 February 2022 — Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo v Commission (Rejection of a complaint)

(Case T-399/19) (1)

(Competition - Abuse of a dominant position - Gas markets of central and eastern Europe - Decision rejecting a complaint - No EU interest - State action defence - Obligation to conduct a diligent examination - Procedural rights under Regulation (EC) No 773/2004)

(2022/C 128/24)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A. (Warsaw, Poland) (represented by: K. Karasiewicz, T. Kaźmierczak, K. Kicun and P. Moskwa, lawyers)

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: B. Ernst, G. Meessen and J. Szczodrowski, acting as Agents)

Interveners in support of the defendant: Gazprom PJSC (Moscow, Russia), and Gazprom export LLC (Saint Petersburg, Russia) (represented by: J. Karenfort, J. Hainz, B. Evtimov, N. Tuominen and J. Heithecker, lawyers, as well as D. O’Keeffe, Solicitor)

Re:

Application under Article 263 TFEU for annulment of Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices); |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls Decision C(2019) 3003 final of the European Commission of 17 April 2019 rejecting the complaint (Case AT.40497 — Polish gas prices);

| 2. | Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Commission to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo S.A.;

| 3. | Orders Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC to bear their own respective costs. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders Gazprom PJSC and Gazprom export LLC to bear their own respective costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
Certification
of Principal Executive Officer


Pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. 1350


(Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)





I, Hua
Meng, Chief Financial Officer of Dahua Inc. (the "Company") do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a
review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2008 of
the Company, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"):





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2) The
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the
Registrant.





By:Hua
      Meng, Chief Financial Officer(Principal
      Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)





March 23,
2009
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-11-00323-CV

CHANDLER KNOWLES CPAS, 

PLLC

APPELLANT

V.

LARRY O'HARA APPELLEE

------------

FROM THE 153RD DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT COUNTY

------------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 AND JUDGMENT

------------

We have considered the parties’ “Joint Motion To Dismiss Appeal.” It is 

the court=s opinion that the motion should be granted; therefore, we dismiss the 

appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), 43.2(f).

Costs of the appeal shall be paid by appellant, for which let execution 

issue. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(d).

PER CURIAM

PANEL: MEIER, J.; LIVINGSTON, C.J.; and GABRIEL, J. 

DELIVERED: November 23, 2011

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
# C_2020215EN.01004102.xml

| 29.6.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 215/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.6.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 215/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 13 May 2020 — Global Brand Holdings v EUIPO (XOXO)

(Case T-503/19) (1)

(EU trade mark - Application for the EU word mark XOXO - Absolute ground for refusal - No distinctive character - Article 7(1)(b) and (2) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001)

(2020/C 215/52)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Global Brand Holdings, LLC (New York, New York, United States) (represented by: D. de Marion de Glatigny, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: A. Folliard-Monguiral, acting as Agent)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 11 April 2019 (Case R 1413/2018-1), concerning an application for registration of the word sign XOXO as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Global Brand Holdings, LLC to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Global Brand Holdings, LLC to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 288, 26.8.2019.

---
#### Muriel D. Palitz, Respondent-Appellant, v Clarence Y. Palitz, Jr., Appellant-Respondent.

Order of the Supreme Court, New York County (S. Ostrau, J.), entered January 15, 1985, which, *inter alia,*directed defendant and American Rediscount Corp. place in escrow with their attorneys one half of all sums received as the result of the sale or transfer of certain stock, denied plaintiff’s motion to amend her complaint and join American Rediscount Corp. as a defendant, is modified, on the law and facts, to direct defendant’s attorneys, as escrow agents, to invest said proceeds in those investments as directed by defendant in accordance with the prior order of this court entered February 14,1985, and to vacate that portion of the order directing American Rediscount Corporation to place the subject proceeds in escrow with defendant’s attorneys, and otherwise affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The issue of whether all or part of the assets of the American Rediscount Corporation constitute marital property remains for resolution in this action. Special Term fashioned a suitable interim remedy by allowing defendant and the children of the marriage unrestrained access to more than $11 million in proceeds from the corporation’s dissolution while still preserving an identifiable fund in the event it is determined that these assets did constitute marital property. However, as urged by defendant, an interest-bearing account does not represent a realistic way to manage funds of the magnitude herein, and we modify the order of Special Term so that other prudent investments yielding substantially greater returns can be made. Additionally, we note that the portion of the order directing American Rediscount Corporation to place the subject proceeds in escrow is moot since such turnover has apparently been accomplished and the corporation has been liquidated.

We have examined the remaining contentions of both parties and find them to be without merit. Concur — Ross, J. P., Asch, Fein and Rosenberger, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00357-CR

Joseph Flores

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 372nd District Court

of Tarrant County (1279885D)

October 10, 2013

Per Curiam

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

the appeal should be dismissed. It is ordered that the appeal is dismissed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

PER CURIAM
#### Carmen Katz, Respondent, v Arthur Katz, Appellant.

In a matrimonial action, the defendant husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ferraro, J.), dated January 30, 1984, which, *inter alia,*granted the plaintiff *221wife a divorce and dismissed his counterclaim for the same relief, directed that he pay to the plaintiff the sum of $50 per week for five years for her educational loans and interest accrued on the loans, and further directed that he pay the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees, amounting to $6,800, less $1,568.50, an amount owed to the plaintiff for arrearages, which amount was held in escrow by the defendant’s attorney and which was directed to be paid to the plaintiff’s attorney and credited against the plaintiff’s counsel fees.

Judgment modified, on the facts, by deleting the fourth decretal paragraph and substituting therefor a provision directing that the defendant husband pay one half of the plaintiff wife’s attorney’s fees, viz., $3,400, and that the $1,568.50 held in escrow be paid to plaintiff’s attorney. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant seeks to avoid reimbursing his former wife for her educational expenses on the ground that she is self-supporting, thereby relieving the defendant of his long-term obligation of support. Under the circumstances presented, we conclude that the court properly directed the defendant to pay $50 per week for five years to the plaintiff to defray the costs of her education (cf. *Morgan v Morgan,*52 AD2d 804).

With regard to the award of counsel fees to the plaintiff wife, “although proof of indigency is not a prerequisite of entitlement to counsel fees * * * ‘the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties’ * * * may not require that the burden of payment of counsel fees be placed on the husband” *(Ackerman v Ackerman,*96 AD2d 543; *see also, Walsh v Walsh,*92 AD2d 345, 347; *Kaplan v Kaplan,*77 AD2d 891, 892, *appeal dismissed*51 NY2d 822). Given the circumstances of the respective parties, including the fact that custody of the parties’ three female children was awarded to the defendant, the plaintiff’s counsel fees should have been equally divided between the parties.

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Titone, O’Con-nor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          28,234
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                               0
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     37,810
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          43,944
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            43,608
<LOANS>                                        615,459
<ALLOWANCE>                                     10,074
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 735,544
<DEPOSITS>                                     588,282
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                              6,762
<LONG-TERM>                                     54,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        53,309
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,191
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 735,544
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 45,402
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                4,919
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                50,321
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              22,512
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              24,741
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           25,580
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    3,771
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,883
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 11,745
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      11,745
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,204
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.00
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.21
<LOANS-NON>                                      4,863
<LOANS-PAST>                                     4,863
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                 5,193
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 8,105
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    1,935
<RECOVERIES>                                       133
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               10,074
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            10,074
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Con. Res. 36 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.Con.Res.36
                                         Agreed to March 5, 2012        

                      One Hundred Twelfth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE SECOND SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
            the third day of January, two thousand and twelve

                          Concurrent Resolution

    Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring),

SECTION 1. USE OF THE ROTUNDA AND EMANCIPATION HALL OF THE CAPITOL.

    The rotunda and Emancipation Hall of the United States Capitol are 
authorized to be used on January 21, 2013, by the Joint Congressional 
Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies in connection with the proceedings 
and ceremonies conducted for the inauguration of the President-elect 
and the Vice President-elect of the United States.
Attest:

                                               Secretary of the Senate.
Attest:

                                 Clerk of the House of Representatives.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                           7,495
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          64,747
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     59,247
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        971,375
<ALLOWANCE>                                     19,895
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,115,823
<DEPOSITS>                                     913,613
<SHORT-TERM>                                    55,500
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,265
<LONG-TERM>                                     11,750
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        57,184
<OTHER-SE>                                      66,511
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>               1,115,823
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 95,303
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                5,910
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                               101,213
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              46,452
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              48,460
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           52,753
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    4,950
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 21,229
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 27,475
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      27,475
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,205
<EPS-BASIC>                                       2.26
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.21
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.11
<LOANS-NON>                                      7,977
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                13,996
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                 38,900
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                16,811
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,088
<RECOVERIES>                                       222
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               19,895
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            19,895
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1



NANOGEN, INC.



CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE
13a-14(a) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, Howard C. Birndorf,
Chief Executive Officer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|             |  |                        
|------------ |  | -----------------------
|May 14, 2004 |  | /s/ HOWARD C. BIRDNORF 
|             |  | Howard C. Birndorf     
|             |  | Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2100

EMMA VICTORIA JOHNSON HOWARD,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

VANCE COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT.; W. B. LILLEY, Sergeant of the 

Vance County Sheriff's Dept., Individually and in his 

officially capacity; VANCE COUNTY DISTRICT COURT; RAYMOND 

EARL DICKERSON, d/b/a T.L. Perkinson Wrecker Service,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:15-cv-00110-FL)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: December 7, 2015

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emma Victoria Howard, Appellant Pro Se. Sonny Sade Haynes, 

WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, PLLC, Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Emma Victoria Johnson Howard seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to 

dismiss Howard’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) action in part and to 

allow certain claims to proceed. This court may exercise 

jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2012), 

and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1292 (2012); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. 

Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545-46 (1949). The order Howard seeks 

to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the 

appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid 

the decisional process.

DISMISSED